Common Descent or Common Designer

[Guest Ehud]

"Evolution" as in the modern usage of "evolution" in the biological sciences, or perhaps the process described by ToE. An allele frequency change, say from 25% homozygous dominant 25% homozygous recessive 50% heterozygote, to 26% homozygous dominant 24% homozygous recessive and 50% heterozygous, is evolution at the smallest level possible - we haven't even introduced a new allele or even change the frequencies that much. But evolution by no means ends with a shuffling of alleles already there, speciation which has been observed in lab and wild is still evolution even though it usually requires more than a simple allele frequency shuffle. Or dino to bird, while definitely more than a shuffling of alleles, is another example of evolution.

Herein lies the problem…to all of the readers out there, the above paragraph illustrates the reason for the immense confusion on this topic. D-9 has argued that 99% of scientists accept evolution. I would estimate that 100% of scientists and 100% of Creation scientists also accept evolution^‡. It all depends on how you define evolution. This was not always apparent to me, but became so during several interesting experiences, only a few of which I will highlight here.

During my master’s degree in biology I took a required course called Professional Development in Biology. At one point during the semester the discussion of teaching evolution came up. The professor talked about how he would teach General Biology for Non-majors, and inevitably there would be a few students who would challenge evolution. To these students he would point out the simple peppered moth example…“At such-and-such point in time you had alleles present in the population which produced white moths at a higher frequency that black moths. After the industrial revolution the allele frequencies changed to produce a majority of black moths and just a few white…etc (I’m sure everyone here has heard the peppered moth story).” He would then ask them if they believed this. Of course the student would say, yes, to which he would reply, “Then you believe in evolution.” Now before you other Creationists out there get up in arms about the peppered moth story, it is important to note that he is absolutely correct. This is biological evolution. However, as the professor was sharing this story, it was the next statement he made that peaked my interest. He said, “Now I can understand students having a hard time accepting common descent, but evolution itself is a fact.” This was when I began to realize that there was a major disconnect between what the general audience calls evolution and what scientists call evolution.

This realization was dramatically reinforced just a few semesters later. I do not tout my beliefs, but the Bible and science question came up during my first meeting with my PI (Principle Investigator…what bosses are called in the science field). Therefore, my thesis committee required that I take the class, Principles of…yep you guessed it…Evolution. Now one might think that this class would spend a good bit of time talking about the fossil record, missing links, or abiogenesis; however, the teacher quickly defined evolution as “a change in the distribution of alleles over time” (or more generally, “a change in genomes over time”), and we spent most of the class talking about things like population genetics, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and natural selection/genetic drift (all concepts which Creationists readily agree with). I remember at one point in the class the teacher listed the criteria required in order for no evolution to be occurring (there are 5 of them: no mutations, no migration, no natural selection, no genetic drift, completely random mating). He then pointed out, “There is no place in the world where the conditions exist for evolution not to happen.” Case closed…right. Yes, if we are considering evolution as accurately defined by a change in the distribution of alleles over time^‡. Does D-9 take us for fools by insisting on a definition of evolution which exceeds that of the experts in the field?

But evolution by no means ends with a shuffling of alleles already there, speciation which has been observed in lab and wild is still evolution even though it usually requires more than a simple allele frequency shuffle. Or dino to bird, while definitely more than a shuffling of alleles, is another example of evolution.

Make no mistake, you can dig around on the internet and find scientists defining evolution as D-9 does, but one only need to take a course in evolution to find out what it is really talking about. When seen in this light it is no wonder that 99% percent of scientists accept evolution. It is probably also true that the vast majority of scientists do accept common descent (evolution aside). This is not surprising as science is a self-perpetuating system…the current generation of scientists trains the next generation. Unfortunately, Bible believing Christians began to flee science leaving it to become saturated by materialists, naturalists, and atheists who are required to believe in common descent based on their world view. One physics teacher I had told me of an interesting happening to a Creationist colleague who earned his PhD at the University of Southern Alabama (they had earned their PhDs together). During his doctorate he had coauthored a book supporting Creationism and was asked to remove his name from the authorship before receiving his degree. Indeed, as mentioned above, I was required to take Principles of Evolution (which I did not mind) because I was a Creationist (this course was not part of the university requirements for the master’s degree). The powers that be are making a great effort to ensure that their vast majority never dwindles.

Based on a review by Ecklund and Scheitle (http://www.jstor.org...p.2007.54.2.289), only 17.4% of biologists consistently believe in a God. The other 82.6% fall into the category of atheist (41%), agnostic (29.9%), or higher power/transient believers (7.7 and 4.1 % respectively). This does not even take into account the interactive role those claiming theism allow their God to play. Therefore, among biologists, 82.6% (give or take a few percentage points) are going to believe in common descent by default, their worldview does not allow for any other explanation. Whether the science profession has a tendency to produce atheists/agnostics or whether these freethinker type of individuals are specifically attracted to scientific careers is an interesting question (for another thread another time), but the bottom line is this, the majority support for common descent among scientists will never change*. One must begin to wonder if this whole discussion is useless; D-9 has taken an unassailable position by seeking refuge behind the impenetrable scientific majority:

I may be wrong but my understanding is that philosophically, unless you are an expert in said field yourself, the best way to determine truth is to see what the consensus among relevant experts is.

From this I gather that the only thing that could change his mind would be to change the minds of the scientific majority, which I’ve just shown is not going to happen anytime soon. That’s not to say that D-9 hasn't suggested evidence:

Genetics establishes a UCA pretty well, and genetics is essentially part of the ToE as far as we need to be concerned.

Take homologous structures, evolution provides a clear and coherent explanation for why we see homologous structures based off mechanisms we have observed and studied.

…or my favorite…

The evidence is basically evolution;

...he is just careful to qualify this evidence by saying...

Not only do we not have time to address everything we hear/see, but we rarely have the understanding to competently evaluate the evidence ourselves to begin with.

This tactfully negates him from the responsibility of either presenting the evidence in detail or having to defend it against scrutiny…the majority of experts say this is good evidence, so it must be, and who are we to say that it’s not. I do find it interesting that 100% (n=2) of the common descenters who have responded to this thread ultimately base their belief on the majority scientific opinion.

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

*Until Christ’s return

Edited December 3, 2012 by Ehud

[Guest Ehud]

P.S. I just found these other survey results published in Nature (http://www.nature.co...l/394313a0.html). According to this survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (top scientists), "biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality)." Therefore, the 94.5% of biologists which do not express belief in God will by default accept common descent...that explains a lot.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Ehud

[Guest Ehud]

P.S. I just found these other survey results published in Nature (http://www.nature.co...l/394313a0.html). According to this survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences (top scientists), "biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality)." Therefore, the 94.5% of biologists which do not express belief in God will by default accept common descent...that explains a lot.

Not necessarily.

Ii is more plausible that it is the contrary. It is their close-up knowledge of common descent that makes it difficult for them to believe in God. In my case, the acceptance of evolution and common descent was the first catalyst of losing my faith, and not vice versa.

Ciao

- viole

Point taken...as noted in my previous post, "Whether the science profession has a tendency to produce atheists/agnostics or whether these freethinker type of individuals are specifically attracted to scientific careers is an interesting question (for another thread another time), but the bottom line is this, the majority support for common descent among scientists will never change." I agree that this question would be an interesting one to address.

In the context of this discussion, when polling largely atheistic/agnostic scientists, we would expect majority support for common descent...this conclusion holds true (and it is the one we're talking about at the moment).

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

[Guest Ehud]

I apologize for this delayed response. I am under some heavy time constraints at the moment and may not be able fully respond for another day or so. I appreciate you patience...and thanks for the good, thought-provoking discussion so far.

Hold the Fort,

Ehud

[thomas t]

[...] but that is because we do not usually discuss these matters with ancient Greek pagans

Ciao

- viole

Hi Viole,

you changed your posting yesterday.

First you compared Christians to Muslims. Now, as that didn't seem enough to you, you liked to add the comparison between Christians and Zeus-worshippers. I believe, nevertheless, that you have the linguistical ability to display your thoughts without doing comparisons. Look, if we'd compare atheists to Nazis, I'm sure you'd feel attacked then. I won't be taking the history book of Zeus-worshippers out right now as to know about what bad things they have committed. Next time you could come up with another religious group and expect us to go into the library, take the history book out and verify if they were criminals or not to know if your comparison was offensive or not.

So, I'd like to ask you: please don't compare us to other religious groups. Thank you.

Thomas

[Guest]

Well, the Nazis wrote "Gott mit uns" on their weapons. I doubt an atheist would do that

What

Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Ecclesiastes 8:11

They Did

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 1 John 4:20

Shows What They Are

There is no fear of God before their eyes. Romans 3:18

And Where They Stand On The Truth

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

~

There Is No Question The Nazis Hated The Christ Of The Bible And The Christian And Christmas And Mercy And Grace

For Indeed These Sinners Were Pagan To The Bone And Stayed A-Thesis (Without God) To The Bitter End

And I Do Find It Suspect Than An "Educated" A-Thesis Would Not Know

The Proud History Of That Late Great

Pagan Empire Of Europe

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Isaiah 57:15

The History Of Some Of Her Very Own Fellow Worshipers

Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. Matthew 23:10-12

Of The Darwinian Dogma And His Master Races

~

However, I was not comparing the plausibility of God vs. the plausibility of Allah or Zeus. If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I was comparing the respective attitude towards some scientific disciplines. My critique is mainly directed to the claim that atheists have a special bias towards common descent. Since for an atheist, with a scientific mind, common descent does not hold a special place when compared with

astronomy or electromagnetism, my examples are there only to make it more explicit.

Although The Demons Behind These gods Of The Heathen Are Real

They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.Deuteronomy 32:17-18

And The Living God Of All Creation Will Be Scorned

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.Colossians 2:8

By The Worshipers Of Science So Call

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:[ 1 Timothy 3:6

Yet The Truth Will Be Known

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Romans 14:11-12

And Some Will Be Blessed

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: John 3:35-36(a)

And Most Will Not

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36(b)

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[thomas t]

[...] but that is because we do not usually discuss these matters with ancient Greek pagans

Ciao

- viole

Hi Viole,

you changed your posting yesterday.

First you compared Christians to Muslims. Now, as that didn't seem enough to you, you liked to add the comparison between Christians and Zeus-worshippers. I believe, nevertheless, that you have the linguistical ability to display your thoughts without doing comparisons. Look, if we'd compare atheists to Nazis, I'm sure you'd feel attacked then. I won't be taking the history book of Zeus-worshippers out right now as to know about what bad things they have committed. Next time you could come up with another religious group and expect us to go into the library, take the history book out and verify if they were criminals or not to know if your comparison was offensive or not.

So, I'd like to ask you: please don't compare us to other religious groups. Thank you.

Thomas

I am not so paranoid and it does not happen very often that I feel attacked. So, you can freely compare atheists with Nazis if you wish, and I will take it as an intellectual duty to disprove it, instead of getting irrationally emotional. For instance, the Nazis wrote "Gott mit uns" on their weapons. I doubt an atheist would do that, even if she were a far right, Jews hater extremist.

However, I was not comparing the plausability of God vs. the plausability of Allah or Zeus, or how moral these religions are or are not; that would be absurd. If you read my post carefully, you will notice that I was comparing the respective attitude towards some scientific disciplines. My critique is mainly directed to the claim that atheists have a special bias towards common descent. Since for an atheist, with a scientific mind, common descent does not hold a special place when compared with astronomy or electromagnetism, my examples are there only to make it more explicit.

So, I'd like to ask you: please read my posts more carefully, before getting all emotional. Thank you.

Ciao

- viole

I did that. However, I came to the same conclusion. The fact that you don't have anything against being compared to a Nazi, does not mean that I wouldn't have anything against being compared to a Nazi, too. We aren't the same people, Viole. I would be very emotional - all emotional, I would take this as an offence, of course, depeding on how strongly the comparison would be formulated against me. In Germany, if someone doesn't have arguments on his side anymore, he makes a comparison with the Nazis, btw. It's a common strategy for discussion. Well, let's leave the Nazi thing aside, the "Gott mit uns" would be worth another thread. Using comparisons, one can btw produce moods and atmospheres, you seem to forget that.

You write that your argumentation was leading to another thing. Hence, you made that comparison a side step.

It's true, you "only" compared Zeus worshipping with praising the almighty God. However, praising someone for the things on earth, has a great effect on how we act in our lives, Viole.

Oddly enough, you claim to be a former Christian, if I remember well. Since you apparently can't make up any consequence of who we are worshipping for our selves, you can't be a former Christian, I think. They (We) all have very strong feelings about it.

That's also a good conclusion, I think, we all can lean back laughing when you'll be coming up with the "I am a former Christian"-story next time.

Blessings

Thomas

[thomas t]

I can write them in German if you wish.

Where did I compare worshipping of God with worshipping of Zeus?

- viole

Well, I prefer English.

I complained about the fact that you compared Muslims and later Zeus worshippers to us. Can I ask you to read more attentively?

Thomas

[thomas t]

OK, langsam.

Do you think that atheists have a special bias towards common descent?

Nice sidestep.

I don't see any connection between my complaint, that you've quoted, and my attitude I could lay out in answering your question. Maybe I'll start with pondering about your questions tomorrow.

Thomas

[thomas t]

Well, I don't see any connection between your complaint and what we are talking about here. So, either you stay on topic, or you start a new thread.

- viole

May I remind you of the fact that you compared us first with Muslims and then with Zeus worshippers? I was referring to that. That happened in this thread. Am I obliged to start a new thread just for complaining about that comparison? No, I liked to do it here.

Or do you think that emotional thinking provides a logical rebuttal of my position?

Ciao

- viole

I don't see any connection between my complaint and this question. I think you are again sidestepping here... I'll come to that question later.

Thomas